Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?

walshb

So, I ask, what on earth are all the agencies doing with all this money for all these years? If we are continually being told that the problem is there, and worsening, what the hell are thy doing? Let us be honest, money cannot be the issue, because yee have so damn much of it. So, what is the problem?

lastlaugh

walshb wrote: »

So, I ask, what on earth are all the agencies doing with all this money for all these years? If we are continually being told that the problem is there, and worsening, what the hell are thy doing?

That made me laugh.

:pac:

AlekSmart

Einhard wrote: »

Ah yes, because grandiose infrastructure projects and dictatorships have always been mutually exclusive. You're correct about the need for a face-palm smiley...

That's one way of putting it,but Gadaffi's "Great Man Made River" project was'nt about Palaces,High-Tech Aircraft or other personal accquisitions which are so prevalent in the African Countries we so generously continue to assist....was it ..?

The GMMR project has in effect brought a semblance of what we might term "normality" to the everyday lives of the ordinary citizens of a largely desertified country.....If this can be dismissed as "Grandiose" then where do we put the TB eradication scheme or the draining of the Shannon basin...?

If we are ever to see an end to the procession of Western Agencies keen to assuage their consciences by donating Aid after yet another Famine,Plague or Civil War,then we need to man-up to the reality of getting real with most of the continents rulers...not just oul Gadaffi..

In times to come,I'd suggest Gadaffi will take the place of the Romans in the "Life of Brian" sketch........"What did the Romans (Gadaffi) ever do for us then...?"

AlekSmart

edanto wrote: »

@lastlaugh Don't edit my posts when you quote them please.

Why is it ridiculous to apply it to the Holocaust? I was trying to illustrate the rate of death in the Horn of Africa, since I don't believe people are aware of the scale of the problem.


Deaths per 100 people, per month, selected events

I don't have any more time for this thread today.

EDIT: Data & Graph from http://www.ronanlyons.com/

Edanto,people are well aware of the "problem" or more accurately the plethora of "Problems" surrounding Africa,its people and it's governance.

Sticking with my Libyan scenario,I'm seeing how the U.N. suddenly decides to get all militaristic and assist in the deposition of a commonly attributed "Dictator" in Gadaffi.

Yet I struggle to find evidence of large scale Loss of life due to the usual Famine/Drought/ or other Man-Made disasters in Gadaffi's Libya whilst several of it's neighbouring countries cannot say the same,yet have never had the U.N./NATO attempt to oust their regimes....

I'm sorry edanto,but to me the entire "Aid" thing is a sadly outmoded throwback to the Black Babies Collection Box thinking,all we have done is computerize it and Niall Mellonize it for broad public feelgood factor.

I'm with suspending the Foreign Aid programme in it's current form and having a total rethink on it's definition before re-starting it...if ever ?

mongoman

How much should we give to foreign aid? Nothing! We have enough problems in this banjaxed country as it is, without squandering it on overseas 'projects'.

Joey32

Mods: sorry if I came across as being obtuse, I was merely returning the favour after it being insinuated that opinion was not worthy of merit, purely because it differed to anothers.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

So, I ask, what on earth are all the agencies doing with all this money for all these years?

That’s a pretty broad (and I suspect, loaded) question – information about what Irish Aid provides funding for is available on their website.

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a pretty broad (and I suspect, loaded) question – information about what Irish Aid provides funding for is available on their website.

As Bill Cullen would say: "I don't want waffle. I want results."

tbh

walshb wrote: »

So, I ask, what on earth are all the agencies doing with all this money for all these years? If we are continually being told that the problem is there, and worsening, what the hell are thy doing? Let us be honest, money cannot be the issue, because yee have so damn much of it. So, what is the problem?

Well you could say the same about social welfare here, right? Or the health system, right? Or any of the Irish charities, right? We've been giving them money for years and if anything, things have gotten worse.


So are you saying that we should stop putting money into them? And if not, why not?


Deja vu....

walshb

tbh wrote: »

Well you could say the same about social welfare here, right? Or the health system, right? Or any of the Irish charities, right? We've been giving them money for years and if anything, things have gotten worse.


So are you saying that we should stop putting money into them? And if not, why not?


Deja vu....

Again, changing the goalposts.

This is ZERO to do with aid and welfare on this island.

Wht don't you open a thread asking to cut welfare payements here.

Then we can discuss it.

tbh

walshb wrote: »

Again, changing the goalposts.

This is ZERO to do with aid and welfare on this island.

changing the goalposts my hole.

I'm merely asking if a finite amount of money will end the need to spend on social welfare or hospitals or irish charities and will "solve" those problems to illustrate how ludicrous your question about why we need to keep funding famine relief is. The only difference in the premise is where the money is spent.

We need to keep spending money because the problems are ongoing. We need to keep spending money because people keep getting sick here, in the same way as they keep getting sick there.

to take your question at face value: what have they done with all the money? They've spent it saving lives. Why do they need more money? because more lives need to be saved. You can apply that answer to the question about why hasn't all the money we've spent on welfare in Ireland done the job, or why hasn't all the money we've spent on aid to Africa done the job.

The relevant bit of your question is the bit in bold. Your problem is with the money going to Africa, because your prejudices have made you believe that the Africans take our money, and laugh all the way to the bank with it. That's your problem, and every post you make on aid to Africa or immigration to Ireland just demonstrates that again and again.
You'll never look at any post that offers an opinion contrary to yours and wonder how much of it is true, all you do is try to figure out a way - any way - that you can refute it to support your position, and the methods you use are getting more and more pathetic.

walshb

tbh wrote: »

You'll never look at any post that offers an opinion contrary to yours and wonder how much of it is true, all you do is try to figure out a way - any way - that you can refute it to support your position, and the methods you use are getting more and more pathetic.

I look at many points made, and ususally it's the vague, "we're saving lives."

Been saying that for years' now. The same way they have been saying the problem is worsening. So, what are they doing that is so fantastic if the problem is not only still there, but worsening? Did it ever ever occur to you, and others, that what we and the west are doing could actually be part of the ongoing problem?

old hippy

It has been my experience that those who yell "charity begins at home" are the most skinflint tight wads & narrow minded people I've ever met.

As you were.

walshb

old hippy wrote: »

It has been my experience that those who yell "charity begins at home" are the most skinflint tight wads & narrow minded people I've ever met.

As you were.

And what about those who spend OTHER peoples money on their charity crusades abroad?

Sad when one refuses to throw money overseas they can be labeled tight.

old hippy

walshb wrote: »

And what about those who spend OTHER peoples money on their charity crusades abroad?

Sad when one refuses to throw money overseas they can be labeled tight.

Sad that acts of humanity can cause so much derision and division

walshb

old hippy wrote: »

Sad that acts of humanity can cause so much derision and division

It is, and maybe it is because some may question if the acts are both genuine, and effective.

old hippy

walshb wrote: »

It is, and maybe it is because some may question if the acts are both genuine, and effective.

Of course, everything should be questioned. That includes the naysayers who can't or won't keep an eye out for their neighbours.

edanto

walshb wrote: »

Did it ever ever occur to you, and others, that what we and the west are doing could actually be part of the ongoing problem?

Yes, of course it did. I mean do you have such a feeling of intellectual superiority that you think people on this side of the debate don't consider these things?

The thing is - I probably have a very different answer to that question to what you have.

The west is responsible for the ongoing problems such as:

- International corporate corruption and resource extraction

- Farming and international trade regulations that disenfranchise exporters from developing nations

- Proxy wars - if you don't know what they are or how many there are currently, then you don't know as much as you think you do

- The obvious history (for me, a day spent in Elmina slave castle in Ghana ten years ago still upsets me - it's hard to describe the brutality of our european ancestors and the deep, deep damage that did to Africa).... and how that is still manifested today in modern economics.

I suspect that your answer to the could we actually be part of the ongoing problem? is quite different, you probably think aid is a bad thing and it's all being wasted blah blah blah.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Did it ever ever occur to you, and others, that what we and the west are doing could actually be part of the ongoing problem?

Has anyone said that the current system is perfect? Obviously not. Has anyone said that the solution to world hunger and poverty lies exclusively in the provision of aid and has absolutely nothing to do with, for example, trade barriers? Obviously not.

Has it occurred to you, and others, that a substantial reduction in aid could do a whole lot of harm?

sarkozy

walshb wrote:

Did it ever ever occur to you, and others, that what we and the west are doing could actually be part of the ongoing problem?

It's amazing how those who choose to do good with their lives are held to an impossible standard that all they do must be perfect while those who do nothing do not subject themselves to the same standard because if they did, they'd realise their complicity in a system that so far from perfect that we're in a global crisis bigger than the great depression. Economic crisis. Social crisis. Environmental crisis. Thanks, guys.

sarkozy

Gudgeoon wrote: »

I'm amazed the IMf didn't insist on an end to overseas aid as part of their programme.

Imagine you had a friend who was completely broke and close to bankruptcy. You help him out and then find he is giving money to charity.

Is there any proof of the effectivness of overseas aid? You would expect that the money is used by dictators to buy arms. In the case where the money does reach the poor, you would expect their governments to cut public spending by the same amount and use the savings to buy more weapons.

I'd actually rather the Irish government continued development aid and ceased funding to the IMF who is, essentially, shovelling our money into bankers' bonuses. But good politics is good politics, eh?

In fairness, the last time we halted funding to the IMF was under Ruarai Quinn as Finance Minister in opposition to the damning reports on IMF Structural Adjustment policies of the 1980s. Then McCreevy coughed up. In actual fact, the IMF guy in charge of 'rescuing', i.e. deepening, Thailand's economic and social crisis of the 1990s was none other than Ajai Chopra. The IMF has no credentials in development.

Cork boy 55

Elsewhere, the Department of Foreign Affairs spend on Overseas Development Aid is to be reduced by €52.9
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1205/breaking21.html

Cork boy 55

Next year, Ireland is expected to contribute around €640m, which represents .52% of GNP.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/overseas-aid-package-to-fall-by-almost-20m-in-2012-534068.html

640 million snots for 2012

walshb

"Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs Joe Costello said Concern, Trócaire and GOAL received about €100m of the money."

And still we have the same problems since I can remember, and I am sure since folks older than I can remember, and older than them can remember. Bottomless pit of money.

And hospitals here getting closed, cop shops, no money for the traffic corp etc etc etc.

Household charge? Why not half this preposterous sum and then the government would make a whole lot more than taxing us for owning a house?

You can imagine the uproar from the likes of Kilcullen and O'Shea if they did. They would have no problem with us getting screwed as long as they aren't getting "screwed."

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Household charge? Why not half this preposterous sum and then the government would make a whole lot more than taxing us for owning a house?

Eh, no. No they wouldn't.

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, no. No they wouldn't.

Well, they are looking to take in a certain amount with the charge, not sure of the figure. So, if they halved the aid bill, that is a massive saving, is it not?
300 million?

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Well, they are looking to take in a certain amount with the charge, not sure of the figure. So, if they halved the aid bill, that is a massive saving, is it not?
300 million?

Ireland's public deficit is currently €18 billion - halving oversea's aid isn't going to make any great inroads into that figure. The proposed property tax, on the other hand, will yield several multiples of 300 million.

edanto

Ya know walshb, I used to have a similar concept of Aid/Development, that it was just that a small number of people in faraway places were poor and if we just gave them some money and a leg up, then the problem would be solved. And with that mindset, it is confusing how the problem is not yet solved.

But, as you well know, it's a much more complex situation than that.

For example:

John Pilger wrote: »

...during 1985 - the year of the Ethiopian famine and of 'Live Aid' ... the hungriest countries in Africa gave twice as much money to us in the West as we gave to them: billions of dollars just in interest payments.

and some more recent examples...
--> There are huge trade barriers to farmers in Africa that want to trade with the EU - and there would be big protests by our farmers if those barriers were threatened. We need to find a way to nurture agriculture at home and create markets for poor producers.

--> There are corrupt leaders in many poor countries. But do those corrupt leaders exist independently of our world? Of course not. They have bank accounts and shell companies in our tax havens, and our politicians do nothing.

But trying to solve those problems is a massive poliical challenge, it's incredibly difficult to get people interested enough to be active. I canvassed for a candidate at the last election, knocked on about a thousand doors, spoke to a few hundred people and no-one asked about global politics.

And in case you missed the news story, we're living in the 11th most prosperous country in the world. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056499659

I know that you appreciate the richness of African culture, the magnificent spirit of the people there, but why do I never see posts from you supporting the work of groups like Traidlinks http://www.traidlinks.ie/ or Value Added in Africa http://www.valueaddedinafrica.org/ that are trying to generate prosperity in Africa. Why do you feel you have to give out about aid all the time? I thought that tbh's post above really hit the nail on the head.

walshb

Because Paddy and the west wanna' take over. Always have. Big white chiefs. It is insulting to the great people of the continent. Constantly portraying black Africans as inept, sad, pathetic, incapable of helping themselves.

edanto

Well, that's not how aid works. Local solutions to local problems is a mantra we work by (I mentioned I work in an NGO). Most of our staff are local to the countries we work in (about 5% are in Dublin). We do a detailed stakeholder analysis of every project to make sure that we are NOT imposing our will or our ways on the people we support.

If your major problem is with rich people taking over Africa, then perhaps we have more in common than you think. I see that as a problem too.


The new African land grab
The "town" chief of the village seemed to be in a state of shock.

Sitting on the front porch of his mud and thatch home in Pujehun District in southern Sierra Leone, he struggled to find words that could explain how he had signed away the land that sustained his family and his community.

He said he was coerced by his Paramount Chief, told that whether he agreed, or not, his land would still be taken and his small oil palm stand destroyed. He didn't know the name of the foreign investor nor did he know that it planned to lease up to 35,000 hectares of farmland in the area to establish massive oil palm and rubber plantations.

Haltingly, he said that without his land, he might as well take his leave of the village. By that he meant that he was as good as dead.

This is a ground-level view of a large land deal in Africa, where in recent years foreign investors have acquired tens of millions of hectares of farmland. In 2009 alone, the World Bank estimates that around the world foreign investors acquired about 56 million hectares of farmland - an area about the size of France - by long-term lease or by purchase. Farmland has become a favourite "new asset" class for private investors; "like gold, only better" according to Capital & Crisis.

The World Bank has its own term for the new global land rush. It calls it "agro-investment" and has developed seven voluntary principles to make the land deals "responsible".

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/06/201162884240129515.html